Jenksismyhero

Backtrack: http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/...t-chicago-bulls

The tournament for non-playoff teams for the right to the first pick makes no sense. A team like Charlotte would be in last place forever.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) I don't know what article you're referring to. If someone had already been arrested, why was he still calling in suspicious black youths in his neighborhood? Is it justifiable for him to call in any black kid he doesn't know and to then follow that person while armed? Is Martin's life the price we pay to deter would-be criminals, to show them that we're armed and ready to shoot? The one Balta posted that started this whole argument - he was doing his thing, risking the lives of everyone on his street by being an armed vigilante, looking for an innocent black kid to shoot, when he happened upon a kid peeking into a window. He called the cops and the kid got arrested trying to rob the place. And because one kid got arrested after a year's worth of crime he should stop calling the police?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:23 PM) How effective have Zimmerman's armed patrols been? The criminals haven't been caught and an innocent person is dead. Is Martin's life the price society pays in order to send a message to would-be criminals? According to that article it resulted in an arrest right? Didn't he call the cops as a kid was peeking into a window?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:23 PM) Yes or no... Is your solution having armed civilians patrolling the streets and choosing whether or not to deploy deadly force on their own? Every statement you've made here defends that option. Yes Balta, that is the only solution i'm advocating here, because anyone who touches a gun will shoot someone, and that's exactly what I want. Everyone dead=no crime! Sigh, I knew I shouldn't have started responding. Wasted day at work!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) No one has said that Zimmerman didn't have the right to call the police on this potential threat that he saw, and no one has said that they dont' have the right to be proactive and form a neighborhood watch. I dispute the idea that it's a good thing to have unarmed, untrained, and unidentified civilians attempting to deal with potential crimes on their own, and I hugely dispute the idea that having that civilian armed will actually make the situation any better. Right, so stay in your house, lock the doors, and pray those once an hour police patrols catch the criminals in your neighborhood. That'll surely help.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) Why wouldn't more frequent police patrols serve as a deterrent? Let's be realistic - how much money and man power would it take for that to be effective? It's a gated community mind you. If you're a teenager staking out a place, how difficult is it to hide behind a bush until the "patrol" drives by?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) So will you just admit that you're in favor of vigilantism instead of trying to couch it in other terms? As much as watching a kid in your neighborhood is "stalking" then I guess creating a presence in your neighborhood that you're armed and ready to defend yourself is "vigilantism," so sure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) Jenks, please tell me I'm reading your posts wrong: It's acceptable that armed, untrained civilians actively "take back their streets" from burglars, even if it significantly increases the likelihood that an innocent victim who was incorrectly profiled winds up shot to death? That the loss of a human life is a tragic event, but that we need to move past it in order to look at the bigger picture of stopping burglaries? He was trained with his weapon right? Licensed/certified all that. He wasn't someone who stumbled upon a gun and decided to start shooting people. And I never said he should take back his streets by shooting would-be criminals. I'm saying that there's no need, as Balta originally stated, to use this as an example for why no one should be allowed to carry guns. There's a mental deterrent effect out there that, IMO, hasn't sunk in yet - that if you try to rob someone, there's a good chance they'll be waiting inside ready to shoot and protect themselves/their property.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:09 PM) Stalking is an accurate word as far as I'm concerned. It is an accurate description of following a person first in a car and then on foot. And second...you just argued that arrests and such will not help the situation. A normal neighborhood watch should be trying to generate arrests. That's the goal. If arrests are ineffective, what option are you defending other than vigilantes gunning down people in the streets? I think someone's presence like Zimmerman's is going to be more effective than relying on people to call something into the police AFTER the crime has already occurred. That's the point i'm trying to make. Increasing police funding to do more patrols or to speed up response times isn't going to do anything because at that point the crime is already over. Ideally if Martin were a potential robber, Martin "stalking" him would have ended up being a phone call to the police before or during Martin's crime, not after he was already gone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 11:20 AM) More reason for Evan Turner to hate Rose. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baske...0,4732548.story Not on the list? Dwight Howard! Because he's an asshole.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 12:00 PM) This is shockingly callous. Sorry I don't buy into the media hype of this situation when innocent kids in my own city are killed on a nightly basis. It's a tragedy, no doubt about it, but we deal with these incidents on a daily basis without a second of thought.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 11:56 AM) I don't think anyone's going to dispute the right of a community to organize a neighborhood watch. The question is...we have a circumstance that ended up in a barely trained neighborhood watchman stalking a 17 year old kid and killing him. Is that an acceptable result, or what scenario should lead to intervention here? If it had turned out that he was actually chasing a robber and wound up shooting him down, that's not a good scenario either. Some might say this is an argument for improving the funding and response times of the local PD also. "Stalking" is crap. He was watching a kid that fit the profile of other criminals in the area - call that rayces all you want, but when all of the recent crime was being committed by young black kids I don't have a problem with that. And yes, it's "acceptable" IMO just like it's "acceptable" that alcohol is still served in bars despite the fact that hundreds of thousands die each year from drunk drivers or how hundreds of thousands die each year from car accidents yet we still allow people to drive. Is it tragic? Yes. Is it a good example for why people shouldn't be able to protect themselves/their property/their neighborhood? No. And how is increasing funding going to do anything here? How is increasing response times going to stop the crime. You've got a perfect example here of a situation where there have been tons of calls to the police, some arrests, and nothing has changed. Great, more police = more arrests. Since this is burglaries (thank God nothing more serious.....yet) those kids get minimal time or probation. It's not going to stop anything.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 11:02 AM) I understand that, but which outcome do you think Zimmerman would have preferred? Another house get robbed, or him to have killed an innocent person? Just because one potential outcome isn't satisfactory doesn't mean you choose one that is most likely to be worse, just for the sake of variance. We deal with tragic losses daily and continue moving forward because the bigger picture is more important. I don't see how this case differs. If Zimmerman and his fellow neighbors could turn the tide of his neighborhood by being active, by showing an attitude that they're not going to accept the crime, that they will be armed and might act in protection of their life/property, then perhaps the criminals will think twice about what they're doing. As is, criminals are in fear of nothing. They don't fear their victims and they don't fear getting caught because they know, especially with theft/robbery, they'll be back on the streets in no time. Police can't keep up (and again, they're role isn't to prevent crime in the first place) so I'm 100% ok with people like Zimmerman taking an active role in trying to take back their street.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) Generally speaking, poor minority communities do not rely on the police. They strongly distrust the police. edit: and I really doubt armed civilian response is going to stop violence from organized gangs. In fact I'd place a good deal of money on homicides increasing! Right, but this is precisely why those communities try to start neighborhood watches, to start reigning in their communities with their churches, etc. They're TRYING to do SOMETHING, not just protect their home and hope nothing bad happens. Unfortunately for the communities here it's far too late and it's just a perpetual cycle that won't be broken until those communities are broken up. But that's a different topic.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) Secure and protect his own home? Report them and hope that police recognize the trend and continue to increase their patrols? Allow the trained professionals to address the situation? Of all the possible outcomes of a George Zimmerman/suspicious black man confrontation, how many do you think end well? As frustrating as that must have been, there is not anything he could have done that would have significantly improved the situation. This is why the south and west sides are completely lost. The communities have thrown up their hands and relied on the police to deal with the problem. Unfortunately the police are reactionary. They don't prevent crime, they clean up the mess as best they can.

You're right, because for the year prior all of his (and his neighbors) calls to the police really changed things. That neighborhood was getting safer thanks to all that police assistance. That's why people were getting dogs, the neighbors were forming a watch group and people were moving out. Totally reasonable to sit back, watch your house/neighor's house get robbed and expect the police to protect you.

And it bears repeating - there's no evidence he was acting as a vigilante. He was walking around his neighborhood when he spotted Martin. He then trailed Martin and from that point on there are conflicting accounts. For all we know (and what Zimmerman will claim), he was trailing Martin to witness an actual criminal act so he could report him. He wasn't necessarily going to stop it from happening or start a fight. And he (smartly) had a gun for his own protection, not just in that situation, but anytime he was out in his s***ty neighborhood.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 10:43 AM) Yeah, what is his obligation? He was going to do what, exactly, to change this trend? Show a presence of security that the police clearly were not offering? What's the alternative? Stay at home and hope the criminals get bored? Call the cops so they can catch and release the criminals without stopping anything?

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) He felt he was obligated to follow and kill an innocent teenager because some break-ins had happened in his neighborhood recently? That seems like a bit of a stretch. No, that's the tragic result. Everything leading up to it was 100% reasonable and expected given the circumstances.

I just finished that article. It's a tragedy that an innocent kid got shot, but I can't fault Zimmerman at all for carrying a gun and being proactive about the problems he and his neighbors were having. I'd be fed up. You've watched your neighborhood go to s***. You've watched criminals REPEATEDLY commit crimes with nothing done about it. You know that even if a kid gets picked up he's sent to juvi or given probation or something and is back on the streets days or weeks later. The cops have clearly failed (though really without having a 24/7 presence there's not much they can do). So Zimmerman did what he felt he was obligated to do.

DAS RAYCES!

QUOTE (MAX @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 01:04 AM) He clearly bumped into him on purpose after the celebrated dunk. I am not condoning what Artest did. I am saying Harden invited it. No.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Apr 24, 2012 -> 09:40 PM) The Killing is just getting strange. My theory:

The only reason I ask is that I can spend an extra 20 bucks and get the unlocked i5 chip. If it's something I might eventually do (i.e., easy enough to do) I'll just do that. My ATI Radeon graphics card from back in the day had that feature and it rarely worked properly.